Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Ukraine on the brink of civil war. Mod Warning in OP.
Options
Comments
-
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907comongethappy wrote: »If you are going to cry "war crimes!"
You will need to show us the treaty/statute/declaration demonstrating that a nations army engaging an insurrection is a war crime.
Art. 23
To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
Art. 25.
The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
Art. 28.
The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited.0 -
1)that's a lie about mortars & snipers.
2)If IRA fighter shoot down the NI helicopter - does it allow UK army to siege and attack the whole city?
The army goal is DEFENDING it's people not fighting them.
Not an expert but I think whole areas of Belfast & Derry were under de-facto siege at the height of the troubles.
.......let us know when targets in east Ukraine who aren't militia are being assaulted?
I'm sure the Kremlin would be quick to rush to the Hague.... But someone might retort with "Chechnya".0 -
comongethappy wrote: »It's a pointless sad situation. It's also nothing like Syria
what is the difference?
Oh, let me tell the difference:
FSA has Al-Qaeda (a known terrorist organisation) and foreing nationals in it
It receives a large international financial support:In February 2012, British foreign secretary William Hague said that Britain was prepared to send advanced communications equipment to the FSA to help them coordinate their forcesOn 1 March, Kuwait's parliament declared support for the FSA.By mid-May, it was reported according to opposition activists and foreign officials that the FSA had started to receive significant financial support from the Persian Gulf nations for the purchase of arms.In July 2012, a non-governmental organization based in Washington DC, called Syrian Support Group, received clearance from the U.S. Treasury Department to fund the Free Syrian Army.0 -
Don't know why you are quoting me there hun.
I think EU support for the FSA (or what is left of it) is misguided.
At least Russia has steered clear from that particular conflict though.........
.......Oh... wait....?0 -
1)that's a lie about mortars & snipers.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/05/ukrainian-troops-clash-pro-russia-milita-gun-battles-slavyansk
Unfortunately it's not, and there's reports they took down another helicopter today, some of the separatists are very heavily armed0 -
Advertisement
-
Unfortunately it's not, and there's reports they took down another helicopter today, some of the separatists are very heavily armed
These are carriers CAPTURED from Ukranian army by rebels!
So it ukranian army who supply rebels with ammo)))
theguardian.com world 2014 apr 16 ukrainian-troops-civilians-kiev-anti-terrorist-krutovOn Wednesday, pro-Russian militia captured six Ukrainian infantry fighting vehicles and, allegedly, 60 soldiers in Kramatorsk, driving them to nearby Slavyansk with a Russian flag flying.0 -
-
-
-
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907
Art. 23
To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
Art. 25.
The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
Art. 28.
The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited.
You haven't demonstrated that using an army against domestic insurrection is a war crime. You've quoted The Hague Regulations (something notoriously vague) and badly. None of those back your claim that it's a war crime to use the military against your own civilians.
Also, you do realise that The Hague Regulstions don't apply in domestic armed conflict, right?
The only applicable international humanitarian law in a non international armed conflict is article 3 of the Geneva convention, additional protocol II (as ukraine is a signatory) and customary law. And you'd need to ignore an incredible amount of state practice to argue that military force against separatists is in some way illegal
Russia in Chechnya, the American civil war, Northern Ireland. Hell, even Ireland's army is intended as 'an aid to the civil power'. The police aren't intended for use in civil war. That's the military's job.0 -
Advertisement
-
Civil war is still a war right?You haven't demonstrated that using an army against domestic insurrection is a war crime. You've quoted The Hague Regulations (something notoriously vague) and badly. None of those back your claim that it's a war crime to use the military against your own civilians.
Also, you do realise that The Hague Regulstions don't apply in domestic armed conflict, right?
Let me guess, that's a Belfast, right?Russia in Chechnya, the American civil war, Northern Ireland. Hell, even Ireland's army is intended as 'an aid to the civil power'.
youtube.com watch?v=HCudTGQDWE4
Once again: please show me helicopters/planes/tanks SHOOTING in NI towns?
That's funny, because you just told that "The Hague Regulstions" doesn't apply to a "civil war" and now saying that army is intended to use in a civil war. Now declaring any conflict a "civil war" army can kill civilians? Without breaking the laws?The police aren't intended for use in civil war. That's the military's job.
I can let you for sure that neither Ukranian nor Rusian army wasn't trained to fight civilians, nor intended to
youtube.com watch?v=83SMMDffBBg0 -
Yes and two different legal regimes apply, depending on whether or not it's a civil war or not.Civil war is still a war right?
You quoted the Hague Regulations. Which don't apply in an internal armed conflict.
So your issue isn't with force being used, it's when helicopters or tanks get used? There's no prohibition under international law on the use of armour or artillery in conflict, let alone internal armed conflict.Let me guess, that's a Belfast, right?
youtube.com watch?v=HCudTGQDWE4
Once again: please show me helicopters/planes/tanks SHOOTING in NI towns?
You seem to be moving the goalposts a lot.
Are you honestly getting snotty about a typo? Your own posts are full of spelling grammar mistakes so you might want to look into your own posts first.That's funny, because you just told that "The Hague Regulstions"
Yes, the Hague Regulations don't apply to a civil war.doesn't apply to a "civil war" and now saying that army is intended to use in a civil war. Now declaring any conflict a "civil war" army can kill civilians? Without breaking the laws?
Intentionally targeting civilians is indeed a breach of IHL relating to internal armed conflict (although Common Article 3 and Customary Law, NOT the Hague Regulations) but if people are armed and attacking others, they're not civilians and aren't covered by IHL's legal protections. They're combatants.the ICRC wrote:"practice is not clear as to the situation of members of armed opposition groups. Practice does indicate, however, that persons do not enjoy the protection against attack accorded to civilians when they take a direct part in hostilities "
See here for more info
I'm genuinely struggling to understand your point here. I appreciate English might not be your first language but could you expand on what you're trying to say here please?I can let you for sure that neither Ukranian nor Rusian army wasn't trained to fight civilians, nor intended to
youtube.com watch?v=83SMMDffBBg0 -
Are other former members of the Soviet Block getting nervous? What are the chances of this happening in other former Soviet states? Or will Russia be exhausted by events in the Ukraine?
I can see Belarus ending up back with mother Russia.
Hell they are already in bed together.
Then we might see something kick off again in South Ossetia and/or Abkhazia.
If the Russians see things working out in Ukraine it could embolden them.
Even though there is a sizable Russian population percentage (mid 20s) in Estonia and Latvia, their membership of the EU and NATO means they really are untouchable, unless putin really has a major brain fart.using an army against own people -is a WAR CRIME, which must be prosecuted at International Criminal Court at Hague.
Has any EU leader ever noticed this?
So I presume you would be in favour of mr putin making an appearance to explain some incidents in Chechnya ?I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
I can see Belarus ending up back with mother Russia.
Hell they are already in bed together.
Then we might see something kick off again in South Ossetia and/or Abkhazia.
If the Russians see things working out in Ukraine it could embolden them.
Even though there is a sizable Russian population percentage (mid 20s) in Estonia and Latvia, their membership of the EU and NATO means they really are untouchable, unless putin really has a major brain fart.
So I presume you would be in favour of mr putin making an appearance to explain some incidents in Chechnya ?
As far as I can see Putin is playing a long game of chess when the rest of the world is playing checkers.
The US has weakened its super power status the minute Obama made that stupid red line in the sand comment re Syria and didn't back it up. Rule number one: KEEP YOUR WORD.
Germany is not energy dependant and its military can't meet Russia's. So at the heart of the EU, Germany is not going to step on Russia's toes, NATO or no NATO. I'm sure Putin knows this.
Then you had the diplomatic talks in Geneva... anyone could see that was Putin buying time and they were done for that reason and that reason alone.
To me anyway, the writing is on the wall with regards to the Ukraine, and they can't possibly fight this and win and they won't get backing from either the US or the EU as they are not NATO and as Germany is energy dependent on Russia.0 -
It's a matter of forces being used. These kind of tasks are for police/special forces ,not the Army. Army - is NOT for internal conflicts (and was never intended to be used in a civil war), let alone using unguided missiles in towns and killing unarmed people its a war crime.So your issue isn't with force being used, it's when helicopters or tanks get used? There's no prohibition under international law on the use of armour or artillery in conflict, let alone internal armed conflict.Are you honestly getting snotty about a typo? Your own posts are full of spelling grammar mistakes so you might want to look into your own posts first.
I'm saying that what you called "Regulation" is actually a
"Hague CONVENTION respecting the laws and customs of war on land" - it says nothing about the difference between internal or external conflicts.if people are armed and attacking others, they're not civilians and aren't covered by IHL's legal protections. They're combatants.
The people are being killed in Slavyansk right know and at least some of them are not armed and NOT combatants
I appreciate that you may not know the Ukranian reality, but Ukranian soldiers take the Oath of Allegiance not to the Monarch (as in UK) or to the abstract 'State' or Constitution, but to the PEOPLE OF UKRAINE.I'm genuinely struggling to understand your point here. I appreciate English might not be your first language but could you expand on what you're trying to say here please?
And that they don't have to obey the illegal orders (i.e. attack or shoot civilians) by law.
It's like obeying one group of people, they took Oath to, to shoot another group of people they also Oath.0 -
@na1: Going away from the thread on how the Ukrainian Govt is responding to how a foreign power (Russia) is attempting to undermine it by proxy within the Ukrainian State, a possible answer to this (your) question (That's funny, because you just told that "The Hague Regulstions" doesn't apply to a "civil war" and now saying that army is intended to use in a civil war. Now declaring any conflict a "civil war" army can kill civilians? Without breaking the laws?
The use of an army" internally" is called "in aid of the civil power" or something similar. When an army is called out onto the streets to restore order and the effective rule of a State's Government, it doesn't see any civilians using force against the Govt as military, just people using force which can have a deadly effect on it's members. The soldiers (or special forces members) are allowed to shoot to kill anyone using deadly force against them (defence of own life or comrades life, being one the rules) regardless of that O/P's appearance or status. Any thoughts to the contrary would give the appearance that the O/P's can use deadly force against the military, but NOT the other way around. A Molotov Cocktail bomb is intended to kill the people it's used against, not to scare them.
Incidentally, re the same weapon, there's this: The name "Molotov cocktail" was coined by the Finns during the Winter War.[1] The name is an insulting reference to Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov, who was responsible for the setting of "spheres of interest" in Eastern Europe under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in August 1939. The pact with the Nazis bearing Molotov's name, which secretly stated the Soviet intention to invade Finland in November 1939, was widely mocked by the Finns, as well as much of the propaganda Molotov produced to accompany it, including his declaration on Soviet state radio that bombing missions over Finland were actually airborne humanitarian food deliveries for their starving neighbours. The Finns, far from starving and engaged in a bitter war for national survival with the Soviet forces, sarcastically dubbed the Soviet cluster bombs "Molotov bread baskets" in reference to Molotov's propaganda broadcasts. When the hand-held bottle firebomb was developed to attack Soviet tanks, the Finns called it the "Molotov cocktail", as "a drink to go with the food".[2] Molotov himself despised the name, particularly as the term became ubiquitous and generalised as Soviets faced increasing numbers of cocktail-throwing protesters in the Eastern Bloc in the years after World War II.....0 -
What a major brain washThen we might see something kick off again in South Ossetia and/or Abkhazia.
If the Russians see things working out in Ukraine it could embolden them.
Even though there is a sizable Russian population percentage (mid 20s) in Estonia and Latvia, their membership of the EU and NATO means they really are untouchable, unless putin really has a major brain fart.
amnesty.org en/library/asset/EUR04/005/2008/en/d9908665-ab55-11dd-a4cd-bfa0fdea9647/eur040052008eng.pdfEyewitness reports, the nature of the munitions used and the
evidence of scattered destruction in densely
populated civilian areas strongly suggest that
Georgian forces committed indiscriminate attacks
in its assault on Tskhinvali on the night of 7 August, causing deaths and
injuries among South Ossetian civilians and considerable
damage to civilian objects.
This has something to do with Ukraine?So I presume you would be in favour of mr putin making an appearance to explain some incidents in Chechnya ?
BTW: Chechens are now ready to help Ukrainian East against Kiev. Tell them about it.0 -
I see. So if you have armed separatists with heavy weaponry, you're saying that the military should step back and let the police do it, even though it's now a conflict and not a public order issue?It's a matter of forces being used. These kind of tasks are for police/special forces ,not the Army. Army - is NOT for internal conflicts (and was never intended to be used in a civil war), let alone using unguided missiles in towns and killing unarmed people its a war crime.
Should Russia have sent the police in Chechnya instead of the army?
Armies are there to protect the state, from internal as well as external aggression. If you think that militaries are only used against foreign actors then you've a very warped view of security.
Have you actually read the Hague Regulation or are you just reading selected parts from the internet?I'm saying that what you called "Regulation" is actually a
"Hague CONVENTION respecting the laws and customs of war on land" - it says nothing about the difference between internal or external conflicts.
If you read Article 2 of the Regulation, you'd see that it only applies between two contracting parties.
LinkArt. 2. The provisions contained in the Regulations referred to in Article 1, as well as in the present Convention, do not apply except between Contracting powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) does not prohibit civilian casualties. If it did, no state would sign up to it. It prohibits the deliberate targeting of civilians (as in, not collateral damage) Unless you can show that the Ukrainian government is engaging in a deliberate policy of targeting civilians?The people are being killed in Slavyansk right know and at least some of them are not armed and NOT combatants
Yes, when serving as an army reservist in Ireland, I took the same oath. However, soldiers also have a duty to follow their chain of command. They can only breach this in the most compelling circumstances. They're engaging in an anti-insurgency operation to prevent secession. Unless they're being told to target civilians, torture, rape etc, then they're doing their job.I appreciate that you may not know the Ukranian reality, but Ukranian soldiers take the Oath of Allegiance not to the Monarch (as in UK) or to the abstract 'State' or Constitution, but to the PEOPLE OF UKRAINE.
And that they don't have to obey the illegal orders (i.e. attack or shoot civilians) by law.
It's like obeying one group of people, they took Oath to, to shoot another group of people they also Oath.0 -
300 medals handed out to "pro-Kremlin" journalists
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crisis-putin-awards-prokremlin-journalists-medals-for-their-objective-coverage-of-crimea-9325664.html0 -
Regarding heavy weaponry: if you get approached on the street by a man threatening you with a knife and you would manage to take the knife off him, and defend with it, would you be charged in a criminal court for possession of the knife (providing that you have a proof that this is his knife)?I see. So if you have armed separatists with heavy weaponry,
I'm saying that if MAJORITY of locals don't want your law & order on their land - you have to step off and let them decide (via referendum)you're saying that the military should step back and let the police do it, even though it's now a conflict and not a public order issue?
No State EVER survived for a long time by threatening its own people.
bingo! There is only a police now in Chechnya. Originally there wereShould Russia have sent the police in Chechnya instead of the army?
regular ARMY forces, not civilians, the Russia was fighting with.
And tell me a single EU &US institution which didn't blame Russia for this?
And now any EU objections about military operation in Ukraine?
What is "internal aggression"? And why army should fight with them?Armies are there to protect the state, from internal as well as external aggression.
If you using an air-to-surface missiles in a densely populated town its an indiscriminate attack
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) does not prohibit civilian casualties. If it did, no state would sign up to it. It prohibits the deliberate targeting of civilians (as in, not collateral damage) Unless you can show that the Ukrainian government is engaging in a deliberate policy of targeting civilians?Yes, when serving as an army reservist in Ireland, I took the same oath. However, soldiers also have a duty to follow their chain of command. They can only breach this in the most compelling circumstances. They're engaging in an anti-insurgency operation to prevent secession. Unless they're being told to target civilians, torture, rape etc, then they're doing their job.
The majority of the population in East Ukraine does not recognize Kievan authorities.
Which are 'separatist' by Kiev's definition.
In case of Army it means that they got orders to fight a significant group of citizen (mostly uinarmed)- as you can see in my video.
As an army reservist in Ireland, what would you do if you (while driving APC) being stopped by a croud of un-armed locals?
and you've been given an order to keep going?
Once again this is not an army task, to deal with un-armed protestors.0 -
Advertisement
-
BTW, Lockstep, do you agree that this is a civil war in Ukraine right now?
And if yes,
do you believe that army is capable to stop the civil war?0 -
But the rebels are far better equipped than just from captured Ukrainian stores. They're also being armed by Russia.Regarding heavy weaponry: if you get approached on the street by a man threatening you with a knife and you would manage to take the knife off him, and defend with it, would you be charged in a criminal court for possession of the knife (providing that you have a proof that this is his knife)?
Remember that the military went in AFTER armed pro-Russian insurgents took over.
Have you ever used weapons before? Stuff like mortars and machine guns take a lot of training to use. It's not a case that the rebels suddenly became overnight experts in using them.
Source that the majority of people want the military to back off? Eastern Ukraine isn't the Crimea.I'm saying that if MAJORITY of locals don't want your law & order on their land - you have to step off and let them decide (via referendum)
No State EVER survived for a long time by threatening its own people.
Yes, because law and order has improved to the extent that now the police can maintain control. Russian police would not have been able to do so in Chechnya when there was such a powerful insurgency in the 90s. They were not fighting "regular" armed forces. They were fighting armed civilians (aka insurgents, as in Ukraine) Also, tanks, choppers and artillery were used. Just saying.bingo! There is only a police now in Chechnya. Originally there were
regular ARMY forces, not civilians, the Russia was fighting with.
And tell me a single EU &US institution which didn't blame Russia for this?
And now any EU objections about military operation in Ukraine?
Noone had a problem with Russia using force against the Chechens. The problem was the brutality with which they engaged in it. Rape, torture etc
See here for more info
Internal aggression is armed groups attempting to secede or overthrow the state. The army should fight them as insurgents are a military force, not common criminals.What is "internal aggression"? And why army should fight with them?
Source?If you using an air-to-surface missiles in a densely populated town its an indiscriminate attack
Source? You keep going on about the "majority" of the population in the East. Have you any evidence of this?The majority of the population in East Ukraine does not recognize Kievan authorities.
Which are 'separatist' by Kiev's definition.
In case of Army it means that they got orders to fight a significant group of citizen (mostly uinarmed)- as you can see in my video.
The army was sent in to fight forces with SAMS, machine guns and mortars. Not exactly civilians now are they?
Usual drill is to fire warning shots and if they continue, keep going.As an army reservist in Ireland, what would you do if you (while driving APC) being stopped by a croud of un-armed locals?
and you've been given an order to keep going?
Once again this is not an army task, to deal with un-armed protestors.
If they're going to try and stop military vehicles, they can't really expect much else.0 -
-
Proof?They're also being armed by Russia.
Yes, including AK74 ))Have you ever used weapons before?
Yes, they tell this themselves that most of them are ex-army or ex-police personnel.Stuff like mortars and machine guns take a lot of training to use. It's not a case that the rebels suddenly became overnight experts in using them.
And majority are LOCALS, or at least Ukrainians.
1)According to theri own sources in Donetsk they have around 2,500 fighters. Where did they come from?Source that the majority of people want the military to back off?
2)if they don't have support from locals they would be blocked and disarmed in a couple of days (Oh, yes, this is what Yatsenyuk - Ukraininan PM has promised )
This is called a revolution. But... wait a minute! What has just happened back in February in Kiev? Should Yanukovich throw an army to a 'peaceful protestors'?Internal aggression is armed groups attempting to secede or overthrow the state. The army should fight them as insurgents are a military force, not common criminals.
In fact he was giving a warnings/ threats from EU to stop police protection of the state building and to disarm the police.
Any warnings to Yatseniuk now?
And if they block the vehicle and don't move - kill them?Usual drill is to fire warning shots and if they continue, keep going.
If they're going to try and stop military vehicles, they can't really expect much else.0 -
check out pictures of Donetsk's, Slavyansk's, Kramatorsk's state buildings and the flags on them.Source?
kyivpost.com content/ukraine/donetsk-police-report-change-of-flags-346318.html
Check out pictures of local police forces with pro-Russian symbols
(This is PRO-Ukrainian not Russian site, you can translate it in google)
unian.net politics/907150-v-kramatorske-militsiya-hodit-s-georgievskimi-lentochkami-nastup.html0 -
-
I've posted videos few pages back where an aircraft and a helicopter are launching missiles.
[Cynical alert]
Those videos wouldn't happen to be footage from Chechnya that's been relabeled?
[/Cynical alert]
How long is the footage? Does it show the context? or just a 5 second clip of aircraft firing rockets? Aircraft generally don't just roam the skies for something to shoot at y'know and tend to be guided into their target by soldiers on the ground who are observing or dealing with a very real threat. So footage by itself is not overly conclusive of anything other than aircraft expending munitions.0 -
SureProof?
"The downing of multiple helicopters is being taken as proof that the pro-Russian militias are at least being armed by Russia."
source
Or you could always follow Putin's line in Crimea that the soldiers were loyal Crimeans who'd gone and bought their guns in the local shops. Luckily, Putin has since admitted that they were RUssian soldiers.
Congrats, then I'm sure you know how much training it requires to operate weapons, especially anti-aircraft ones.Yes, including AK74 ))
Well they're hardly going to say "we've been getting training from Russia now are we?Yes, they tell this themselves that most of them are ex-army or ex-police personnel.
And majority are LOCALS, or at least Ukrainians.
Gotta love those "locals" who try to take over a regional HQ but somehow mistake it for the local opera house.
source
So you don't have any proof that the majority of eastern Ukrainians support them despite mentioning it multiple times.1)According to theri own sources in Donetsk they have around 2,500 fighters. Where did they come from?
2)if they don't have support from locals they would be blocked and disarmed in a couple of days (Oh, yes, this is what Yatsenyuk - Ukraininan PM has promised )
Thought as much.
Yes, Yanukovych had the right to disperse protestors. But it's a different matter entirely to take on protestors with SAMs and mortars. Which is what Kiev is now dealing with.This is called a revolution. But... wait a minute! What has just happened back in February in Kiev? Should Yanukovich throw an army to a 'peaceful protestors'?
In fact he was giving a warnings/ threats from EU to stop police protection of the state building and to disarm the police.
If you use weapons and firearms, expect the government to respond with force. Fairly simple logic.
When they're trying to take over the vehicles and are obstructing them, then yes. If you attack military vehicles, you can't really expect much else of a response.And if they block the vehicle and don't move - kill them?
Although I'm glad to see you've dropped the Hague Regulations argument. That was just embarrassing.0 -
What a major brain wash
Ah yes, I see the putinist Russian arrogance.This has something to do with Ukraine?
Just answer the question.
You accuse others of war crimes and claim they should appear in front of international war crimes tribunals, but you then refuse to say if putin should likewise for Chechnya.I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement